Talk:The National Interest

Infobox
Should this use Template:Infobox_Journal instead?

- Yes, and now it does. Verisimilus  T  12:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, that infobox is for academic journals, this is a magazine. I have changed this. --Crusio (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Dated
This entry is getting somewhat dated and should move beyond the Bush years.


 * So, did it stop publication in 2008? From this page, it appears so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Conservative?
The article says that the magazine is conservative, but I don't see anywhere on the site where the magazine describes itself as conservative. It seems to be more realist on the other hand. 134.48.162.46 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Advertising
Repeating what I've indicated in edit summaries and elsewhere, the article was poorly referenced and promotional before the recent expansion. The expansion added more promotional and unreliable sources. Independent sources are necessary to avoid such WP:NOT and WP:POV problems. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The following two comments are copied from my talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hipal!

This is a response to my talk page where you asked about COI for my edits on The National Interest magazine. For the record, there is no Conflict of Interest, I have not accepted any fees, and I have nothing to do with the magazine. Regarding the "notable contributors" section which you keep deleting: the first undo you did was for citing too many sources closely related to the article, which I, in hindsight, agreed with. I replaced the sources with independent third-party ones, which you've now deleted again. For reference, please look at the Wikipedia article for Foreign Affairs magazine, which is not just more renowned, but also has a section on contributors, using at times language I would deem highly promotional in nature. I tried basing my edit off of that, and compared to the article on Foreign Affairs, my edits are not a unique exception of dreamt-up COI. If you think I am soapboxing or advertising, then lets move this to the talk page of the specific article and get a third or even fourth opinion from other editors. If there is consensus reached that they prefer your edits, then I rest my case completely.

Although I am technically new here, and your time at Wikipedia and seniority is both longer and more respected, it is no grounds for you to keep undoing my edits. I suspect we're both trapped in a highly subjective opinion of what constitutes soapboxing in this article. In my opinion, contributors to a magazine are definitely worth mentioning in an objective, neutral way, because a magazine is nothing without their contributors. Although I've agreed with many of your edits, I do not think its valid to completely undo all of mine as you've now done twice. Instead, a targeted approach to solve the issues you believe exist are more valid. If you and I can't resolve this ourselves, please summon additional editors, preferably at random.

Pangaion (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding.
 * there is no Conflict of Interest Great.
 * I replaced the sources with independent third-party ones They were replaced with a bunch of pr profiles that demonstrate no encyclopedic value nor weight.
 * Re Foreign Affairs: WP:OSE. If you want to compare articles, make sure they are either WP:GA-quality, or have had extensive and relevant discussion.
 * it is no grounds for you to keep undoing my edits. WP:FOC.


 * I've suggested you avoid such articles while you learn your way around Wikipedia, and directed you to working from independent and reliable sources. Ignoring the latter will get you nowhere. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on The National Interest and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. After reviewing the above discussion, I ask both and  to summarize their position in two sentences. Before summarizing your position, Hipal please note that WP is a free content that anyone can edit; and Pangaion please read our community's rules on verifiability carefully. Borsoka (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Other than the references that I retained, the rest are either unreliable or poor (promotional and/or not independent of the subject). Using such sources, the expansion violated WP:NOT, WP:POV, and WP:OR/WP:V. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, my position is essentially that the content removed was too much. For example, If a patient is feeling pain in their arm and we see something's wrong, we don't amputate the entire arm to solve the problem. I feel that what problems my edits had could have been dealt with in a more targeted fashion, for example singling-out the sources needing correction, as opposed to undoing almost everything I wrote. Haha! -- Pangaion (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the summaries. Yes, was bold, but he explained his edits in the edit summaries., you are right: the article could be improved. Before making further edits, please find reliable sources, taking into account Hipal's remarks about the importance of independent sources. I hope you will enjoy your work. Borsoka (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)